U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-27-2009, 11:46 AM
 
260 posts, read 502,073 times
Reputation: 229

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billiam View Post
Yea, that is definently not the truth.

These dogs are there usually not for a pet like a Labrador so they can be petted and people go aw to, but for protection and so people will stay away. These dogs aren't there for aws at all. They are dangerous dogs that are brought up to be vicious many times. You can't make a law that says you must train your dog this way or that way, it simply wouldn't work. Banning the dogs (pitbulls) themselves would.
no it wouldn't. the type of people that make pit bulls vicious would find another breed if they couldn't use pit's. if you would like to educate yourself on the breed and how they have been abused look here: The Truth About Pitbulls
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-27-2009, 11:47 AM
 
7,848 posts, read 18,267,066 times
Reputation: 2781
Quote:
Originally Posted by garmin239 View Post
The deaths are meaningful to those close to the person, but in the big picture it is insignificant when so many more things kill a larger amount of persons. If people are advocating the banning of a certain animal or thing because a tiny amount of people die from it, we'd have to ban most things in the united states.
Sorry, but too many of certain breeds attack other dogs and humans and end up causing major damage. People have lots of choices when it comes to which breed of dog they end up with, and there is simply no reason for them to choose a breed that:

1. will possibly make their neighbors/neighborhood uncomfortable being outside and therefore affect the quality of life in their immediate area.

2. may put themselves at risk of being held responsible for injuries/death caused by their dog.

3. has a questionable and consistent history of attacks on humans and other dogs.

Why not make a better choice instead of such a controversial one? I hope you read the story about the woman killed by a Presa Canario. These people and others who lived in the building and surrounding buildings were terrified of those dogs, and couldn't even comforably leave their home without worry. I just can't believe that the "rights" of dog owners should take precedent over the safety and freedom of the surrounding neighborhood. The freedom to choose such breeds as pets can't be more important than the quality of life for everyone around you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 11:49 AM
 
Location: moving again
4,382 posts, read 15,320,912 times
Reputation: 1589
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg420 View Post
no it wouldn't. the type of people that make pit bulls vicious would find another breed if they couldn't use pit's. if you would like to educate yourself on the breed and how they have been abused look here: The Truth About Pitbulls
i see. well it sure has helped DC (I think- as i rarely hear about Dog attacks on the news anymore)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 11:51 AM
 
7,848 posts, read 18,267,066 times
Reputation: 2781
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg420 View Post
no it wouldn't. the type of people that make pit bulls vicious would find another breed if they couldn't use pit's. if you would like to educate yourself on the breed and how they have been abused look here: The Truth About Pitbulls
Traits become inherent over time...a couple of those traits being nature and demeanor - it's called evolution. Some breeds are generally more vicious and prone to unpredictability than others. That is just simply a fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 11:53 AM
 
260 posts, read 502,073 times
Reputation: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaconJ View Post
Sorry, but too many of certain breeds attack other dogs and humans and end up causing major damage. People have lots of choices when it comes to which breed of dog they end up with, and there is simply no reason for them to choose a breed that:

1. will possibly make their neighbors/neighborhood uncomfortable being outside and therefore affect the quality of life in their immediate area.

2. may put themselves at risk of being held responsible for injuries/death caused by their dog.

3. has a questionable and consistent history of attacks on humans and other dogs.

Why not make a better choice instead of such a controversial one? I hope you read the story about the woman killed by a Presa Canario. These people and others who lived in the building and surrounding buildings were terrified of those dogs, and couldn't even comforably leave their home without worry. I just can't believe that the "rights" of dog owners should take precedent over the safety and freedom of the surrounding neighborhood. The freedom to choose such breeds as pets can't be more important than the quality of life for everyone around you.
maybe you should read some facts about pit's before condemning them:
1.) Since 1998, the breed most involved in fatal attacks has been the **********(don't want to put any other breeds on the spot), not the Pit Bull.
2.) Although there are no accurate or even near accurate census records for dogs in the U.S., in some populations pit bulls are estimated to comprise some 30-40% of the dog population, making it by FAR the most popular breed. Considering that there are an estimated 53,000,000 dogs in the U.S., and assuming that pit bulls make up 20% of that population, there would be approximately 10,600,000 pit bulls in our society. In 1998, five pit bulls were involved in 2 fatal attacks.
That is roughly ONE dog out of 2,120,000 - or .00004716 percent of the pit bull Population.
3.) Over the 32-year period from 1965-2001, Pit Bulls have been blamed for/accused of an average of 2.48 human fatalities per year.
4.) About 40 people (children) per year die by drowning in 5-gallon water pails. A person, during their lifetime, is 16 times more likely to drown in a 5-gallon water pail than to be killed by a Pit Bull.
5.) Approximately 50 children in the US are killed every year by their cribs - 25 times the number of children and adults killed by Pit Bulls.
6.) Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a PALM TREE than a Pit Bull.
7.) Each year, 350 people drown in their bathtubs. You are 151 times more likely to be killed by your bathtub than you are by a Pit Bull.
8) Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. are killed by their parents or guardians either through abuse or neglect. A child is more than 800 times more likely to be killed by their caretaker than by a Pit Bull.
9) It is estimated that 5,000,000 dogs per year are killed in shelters. Since in many places pit bulls make up 30-50% of the shelter population, and are less likely to be considered for placement than any other breed, guessing that 25% of those dogs killed are pit bulls is a very conservative estimate. Therefore, it can be assumed that roughly 1,250,000 pit bulls are killed per year. Therefore - it is at least a HALF MILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY that a Pit Bull will be killed by a HUMAN than the other way around.
10) The average Number of people killed by a Pit Bull each year is 3.
11) It can be estimated that for every Pit Bull who kills, there are 10.5 MILLION that DON'T!
This country wants to ban/destroy 10.5 million innocent dogs for the actions of 0.94% of its category?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 11:55 AM
 
260 posts, read 502,073 times
Reputation: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaconJ View Post
Traits become inherent over time...a couple of those traits being nature and demeanor - it's called evolution. Some breeds are generally more vicious and prone to unpredictability than others. That is just simply a fact.
wrong. it is a myth propigated by the media.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 11:56 AM
 
3,234 posts, read 7,627,844 times
Reputation: 2694
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaconJ View Post
Sorry, but too many of certain breeds attack other dogs and humans and end up causing major damage. People have lots of choices when it comes to which breed of dog they end up with, and there is simply no reason for them to choose a breed that:

1. will possibly make their neighbors/neighborhood uncomfortable being outside and therefore affect the quality of life in their immediate area.

2. may put themselves at risk of being held responsible for injuries/death caused by their dog.

3. has a questionable and consistent history of attacks on humans and other dogs.

Why not make a better choice instead of such a controversial one? I hope you read the story about the woman killed by a Presa Canario. These people and others who lived in the building and surrounding buildings were terrified of those dogs, and couldn't even comforably leave their home without worry. I just can't believe that the "rights" of dog owners should take precedent over the safety and freedom of the surrounding neighborhood. The freedom to choose such breeds as pets can't be more important than the quality of life for everyone around you.
But the thing is its not "too many" of a breed attacking. Its a small percentage of the breed that is doing the damage. Punishing the whole for the actions of a few is not fair.
You are not putting yourself at risk by owning one of these dogs. They have to be trained to attack people. If you actually took the time to research the animal, you would know that they were bred to be human friendly. Temperament tests prove this.
Banning one breed will just give the scumbags mistreating the dogs another breed to make dangerous.
If a large percentage of these dogs were attacking a large amount of people over the span of several decades, you would have a point. Buts its a small percentage of these dogs causing harm and its been a recent problem. Not a historical one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Concrete jungle where dreams are made of.
8,900 posts, read 13,234,845 times
Reputation: 1819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedaddicted View Post
So one dog is reason to ban the whole breed? Sounds like your town's leadership are idiots for not having this one particular dog put down after such a track record. Sounds more like HUMAN issue than the pit bull breed.

It's the owners mainly...most people would have put their animal down if it had attacked 2 people and killed 3 animals. It's a really cruel thing to do. And it's NYC we have to deal with. You have to pull legs for things to get done since they're busy with other animal problems in the whole city.

Anyway, it's a public sidewalk, so anyone is allowed to walk in front of the house. The owners are responsible for making sure the fence is sturdy enough so the dog doesn't force its way out.

Also, they could at least train the dog.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 12:02 PM
 
7,848 posts, read 18,267,066 times
Reputation: 2781
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg420 View Post
maybe you should read some facts about pit's before condemning them:
1.) Since 1998, the breed most involved in fatal attacks has been the **********(don't want to put any other breeds on the spot), not the Pit Bull.
2.) Although there are no accurate or even near accurate census records for dogs in the U.S., in some populations pit bulls are estimated to comprise some 30-40% of the dog population, making it by FAR the most popular breed. Considering that there are an estimated 53,000,000 dogs in the U.S., and assuming that pit bulls make up 20% of that population, there would be approximately 10,600,000 pit bulls in our society. In 1998, five pit bulls were involved in 2 fatal attacks.
That is roughly ONE dog out of 2,120,000 - or .00004716 percent of the pit bull Population.
3.) Over the 32-year period from 1965-2001, Pit Bulls have been blamed for/accused of an average of 2.48 human fatalities per year.
4.) About 40 people (children) per year die by drowning in 5-gallon water pails. A person, during their lifetime, is 16 times more likely to drown in a 5-gallon water pail than to be killed by a Pit Bull.
5.) Approximately 50 children in the US are killed every year by their cribs - 25 times the number of children and adults killed by Pit Bulls.
6.) Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a PALM TREE than a Pit Bull.
7.) Each year, 350 people drown in their bathtubs. You are 151 times more likely to be killed by your bathtub than you are by a Pit Bull.
8) Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. are killed by their parents or guardians either through abuse or neglect. A child is more than 800 times more likely to be killed by their caretaker than by a Pit Bull.
9) It is estimated that 5,000,000 dogs per year are killed in shelters. Since in many places pit bulls make up 30-50% of the shelter population, and are less likely to be considered for placement than any other breed, guessing that 25% of those dogs killed are pit bulls is a very conservative estimate. Therefore, it can be assumed that roughly 1,250,000 pit bulls are killed per year. Therefore - it is at least a HALF MILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY that a Pit Bull will be killed by a HUMAN than the other way around.
10) The average Number of people killed by a Pit Bull each year is 3.
11) It can be estimated that for every Pit Bull who kills, there are 10.5 MILLION that DON'T!
This country wants to ban/destroy 10.5 million innocent dogs for the actions of 0.94% of its category?
I'm not advocating the ban of JUST pit bulls. I'm saying that I agree with a ban on any breed with a history of vicious attacks on humans/pets. The trade off isn't worth it to make sure people can have the option to own that type of dog.

I also don't believe that all dogs of a certain breed should be rounded up and euthanized...that would be too painful for the owners, and as a dog owner I couldn't justify that type of action. But there should be guidelines for owning certain breeds, and one of those guidelines should be that the owner must live in a rural area. Period.

There are laws concerning the ownership of animals like lions, even though lions raised in captivity are very tame and wouldn't hurt anyone. I still wouldn't want one living in my neighbor's back yard that could possibly escape and hurt or kill a member of my family or one of my pets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2009, 12:04 PM
 
7,848 posts, read 18,267,066 times
Reputation: 2781
Quote:
Originally Posted by garmin239 View Post
But the thing is its not "too many" of a breed attacking. Its a small percentage of the breed that is doing the damage. Punishing the whole for the actions of a few is not fair.
You are not putting yourself at risk by owning one of these dogs. They have to be trained to attack people. If you actually took the time to research the animal, you would know that they were bred to be human friendly. Temperament tests prove this.
Banning one breed will just give the scumbags mistreating the dogs another breed to make dangerous.
If a large percentage of these dogs were attacking a large amount of people over the span of several decades, you would have a point. Buts its a small percentage of these dogs causing harm and its been a recent problem. Not a historical one.
I've stated this three times...they don't "have" to be trained to attack. Traits like viciousness have become inherent in certain breeds over a period of years, and even dogs that are not trained to kill/protect can have that characteristic. I'm not just making that up...it's part of natural evolution.

Do a search for "pit bull attack" and see what a "small percentage" of vicious pit bulls there REALLY are...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top